Regular readers of this blog might notice that the side links have changed. This is to reflect my use of blog news and opinion.
While still reading a daily paper, I get much of my political commentary, opinion and other news from bloggers.
Previously, I listed political sites from the major parties as well as a comedy section. Many have now gone because of this change. It is not that these writers aren't interesting. It is that I don't read all of them because I don't have the time. It is also becoming difficult to keep track of all the new bloggers. It has become impossible to provide a comprehensive list of political bloggers, which had been my aim. If this isn't possible it seemed better not to try.
Instead, I decided to link to sites that cover culture, commentary, the main political parties, political opinion, law and comedy. Over time I will probably add sites to these sections or create new sections.
On culture there is a link to Gawker and Robin Fenwick. The commentators represent a range of political views. What they have in common is that they write about politics and are all part of the new media establishment. The political parties section consists of the key sites for party members. Opinion also represents different political views. Under law I must make a declaration of interest. My employer supports Halsbury's Law Exchange. So, I do have a vested interest in promoting it. That said, it has some of the best legal minds writing for it. Finally, comedy. That section has a comedian who is a friend and a US video based site.
So when you come to my blog, think of it as part of something and flick through the other blog links to see what is being discussed.
Monday, 26 March 2012
Thursday, 22 March 2012
What's the Liberal Democrat's Big Idea?
Perhaps the title of this post should be, what will the Lib Dem's big idea be in 2015? After all, it is unlikely the party will give away too many policy ideas while in government and three years away from a general election.
The Liberal party always stood out, for better or worse, as having a very different vision of society to the other two parties. Some of its policies were ridiculed while others were adopted and became mainstream.
For quite some time now all three parties have had similar policies. The arguments are over emphasis and methods as opposed to ends.
In some ways this is to be welcomed. It offers policy stability as opposed to lurching from one idea to another with every change of government. If we all agree on a policy outcome then it makes sense that all three parties pursue it.
However, the danger with this political consensus is that it stifles ideas and innovation.
No doubt the Liberal Democrat leadership would argue that there big idea is raising for the tax threshold for those on low income. But it feels like a mainstream policy. Perhaps one should celebrate this as maturity of the party. The parties on the fringe of Left and Right can develop more outlandish ideas.
Yet parties need big ideas, some vision, something on which to harness their narratives. The Lib Dems forerunner, the Liberal party, set out a vision for decentralising power that was bold and radical. Things have moved on with other parties developing policies that distribute power. That doesn't mean that the Lib Dems should stop thinking about these issues and coming up with answers from a liberal perspective.
The Liberal party always stood out, for better or worse, as having a very different vision of society to the other two parties. Some of its policies were ridiculed while others were adopted and became mainstream.
For quite some time now all three parties have had similar policies. The arguments are over emphasis and methods as opposed to ends.
In some ways this is to be welcomed. It offers policy stability as opposed to lurching from one idea to another with every change of government. If we all agree on a policy outcome then it makes sense that all three parties pursue it.
However, the danger with this political consensus is that it stifles ideas and innovation.
No doubt the Liberal Democrat leadership would argue that there big idea is raising for the tax threshold for those on low income. But it feels like a mainstream policy. Perhaps one should celebrate this as maturity of the party. The parties on the fringe of Left and Right can develop more outlandish ideas.
Yet parties need big ideas, some vision, something on which to harness their narratives. The Lib Dems forerunner, the Liberal party, set out a vision for decentralising power that was bold and radical. Things have moved on with other parties developing policies that distribute power. That doesn't mean that the Lib Dems should stop thinking about these issues and coming up with answers from a liberal perspective.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom
David Friedman, son of Milton Friedman, wrote The Machinery of Freedom in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
It was his first book. The second edition is now available for free from his website.
Friedman sets out what he sees as the foundation for libertarian thoughts. Once he has established the key elements that define a libertarian, or classical liberal society, he speculates on what an anarcho-capitalist country might look like.
Friedman makes clear that his end goal is a society that is anarchic and not Statist. In this very different way of living, he recognises that people will still need security and suggests that private protection agency may be the answer. He also attempts to show how a national defence army can emerge in a Stateless nation.
A the heart of his beliefs is that force or coercion should never be used against an individual.
He is certainly consistent. He makes it clear that his involvement with the US Libertarian party is not because he believes it will, or should, win power. He sees such a party as a way to promote libertarian ideas.
Arguing for a set of arrangements that don't yet existed isn't easy. The reader can question whether nay of this is possible or practical. But Friedman is worth reading if one is interesting in ideas around freedom and how we can organise ourselves voluntarily.
His chapter on ancient Iceland is well worth looking at. The sort of voluntary arrangements that Friedman hopes for in modern day America took place centuries ago and worked, he says, for quite a long time.
It was his first book. The second edition is now available for free from his website.
Friedman sets out what he sees as the foundation for libertarian thoughts. Once he has established the key elements that define a libertarian, or classical liberal society, he speculates on what an anarcho-capitalist country might look like.
Friedman makes clear that his end goal is a society that is anarchic and not Statist. In this very different way of living, he recognises that people will still need security and suggests that private protection agency may be the answer. He also attempts to show how a national defence army can emerge in a Stateless nation.
A the heart of his beliefs is that force or coercion should never be used against an individual.
He is certainly consistent. He makes it clear that his involvement with the US Libertarian party is not because he believes it will, or should, win power. He sees such a party as a way to promote libertarian ideas.
Arguing for a set of arrangements that don't yet existed isn't easy. The reader can question whether nay of this is possible or practical. But Friedman is worth reading if one is interesting in ideas around freedom and how we can organise ourselves voluntarily.
His chapter on ancient Iceland is well worth looking at. The sort of voluntary arrangements that Friedman hopes for in modern day America took place centuries ago and worked, he says, for quite a long time.
Monday, 19 March 2012
Tax: a muddled Lib Dem message
There has been much in the news about this week's Budget and Lib Dems ideas about tax.
As an observer of the Liberal Democrats, and someone who regularly writes about the party, it all seems a touch confusing.
At one stage it appeared that the party was heading towards a radical vision of tax reform: replacing taxes on employment to taxes on wealth. Putting aside whether one approves of this policy approach, the party has had a long tradition of supporting a land value tax (LVT). To go into the next general election campaigning against income tax and for LVT would certainly make the party stand out.
Of course, Vince Cable's 'mansion tax' was never quite that but it could have evolved into it.
At the party's spring conference in Gateshead there was talk of a 'tycoon tax.' That is very different to LVT.
The party needs to decide what policy it is pursuing. Then it needs to set out how it will work and make the case for it. Voters may embrace or reject it. But at least they will have a clear choice.
As an observer of the Liberal Democrats, and someone who regularly writes about the party, it all seems a touch confusing.
At one stage it appeared that the party was heading towards a radical vision of tax reform: replacing taxes on employment to taxes on wealth. Putting aside whether one approves of this policy approach, the party has had a long tradition of supporting a land value tax (LVT). To go into the next general election campaigning against income tax and for LVT would certainly make the party stand out.
Of course, Vince Cable's 'mansion tax' was never quite that but it could have evolved into it.
At the party's spring conference in Gateshead there was talk of a 'tycoon tax.' That is very different to LVT.
The party needs to decide what policy it is pursuing. Then it needs to set out how it will work and make the case for it. Voters may embrace or reject it. But at least they will have a clear choice.
Monday, 12 March 2012
Joyce and Opik offer an alternative view
Ed Joyce and Lembit Opik have authored The Alternative View.
The book is part analysis of Liberal Democrat history and part recommendation of what the party should do next.
Joyce and Opik begin with the establishment of the Liberal party and trace its roots to John Locke.
Much of the book is taken up with discussion of the Orange Book and its authors. Joyce and Opik point out that there is a perception that there is an Orange Book grouping. In fact, they believe that the contributors to that book contradict each other. The reality is that there was no consensus among the writers except one: to achieve liberal ends, liberals means had to change.
When the Orange Book was published it was clear that David Laws and Paul Marshall has assembled various liberal politicians in order to begin a public conversation. They believed it was important for liberalism to think hard about policy. If one reads the book it is clear that there are various ways this can be done. The book wasn't the end of discussion, it was the beginning.
That discussion did not continue. Many activists reacted badly to the book.
The fact that the authors of that book, and the authors of Britain After Blair, have become major players in the party says more about Laws and Marshall spotting rising talent than it does about there being a movement without policy cohesion.
Once Joyce and Opik have provided a detailed analysis of how the party got into government they move on to what it should do next.
Joyce and Opik have four recommendations:
Joyce and Opik appear to suggest that negative campaigning is a recent thing. The reality is that all three parties are guilty of it and the Liberal party was accused of it many years ago.
Joyce and Opik believe that liberalism came about to fight against vested interests, in particular the land grabbing of the aristocracy. They believe a terrible injustice took place when common land was enclosed. Their answer is the implementation of a land value tax. They believe that the revenue should be distributed via a citizen's credit. Thus, an economic injustice would be put right through redistribution. They hint that perhaps income tax could be one day scrapped.
What Joyce and Opik don't do is explain what else might change. If the tax system went through such an overhaul how would public services be paid for? Would they have to be paid for by individuals? If things are to stay pretty much as they are, would a land value tax be enough? If not, does one need a land value tax? Finally, does a land value tax put right an injustice that is no longer relevant?
The authors of the Alternative View also think that Nick Clegg should stand down to prevent political annihilation at the polls in 2015. From listening to Clegg it is far from clear that he is ready to stand down.
What Joyce and Opik don't discuss is Clegg's recent speeches such as the one on the open society. Nor do they examine the way the Conservative and Labour party's have changed in the last few years. They paint the Conservative party as a defender of privilege. But all three parties are complex coalitions and deserve a proper analysis.
Joyce and Opik believe that Clegg, and those around him, are socially authoritarian. Joyce and Opik dislike banning things and feel that many Lib Dems fall into this trap too often. They also make the case that Clegg's 'muscular liberalism' is an acceptance of David Cameron's agenda.
The book is an important contribution to liberalism. It provides a serious analysis of Lib Dem party policy. It is clear that their alternative view is grounded in a liberal tradition. But it is one element of a political tradition that has been influenced by many ideas: distrust of power, the belief in individual liberty, property rights, the rule of law and so on.
The book is part analysis of Liberal Democrat history and part recommendation of what the party should do next.
Joyce and Opik begin with the establishment of the Liberal party and trace its roots to John Locke.
Much of the book is taken up with discussion of the Orange Book and its authors. Joyce and Opik point out that there is a perception that there is an Orange Book grouping. In fact, they believe that the contributors to that book contradict each other. The reality is that there was no consensus among the writers except one: to achieve liberal ends, liberals means had to change.
When the Orange Book was published it was clear that David Laws and Paul Marshall has assembled various liberal politicians in order to begin a public conversation. They believed it was important for liberalism to think hard about policy. If one reads the book it is clear that there are various ways this can be done. The book wasn't the end of discussion, it was the beginning.
That discussion did not continue. Many activists reacted badly to the book.
The fact that the authors of that book, and the authors of Britain After Blair, have become major players in the party says more about Laws and Marshall spotting rising talent than it does about there being a movement without policy cohesion.
Once Joyce and Opik have provided a detailed analysis of how the party got into government they move on to what it should do next.
Joyce and Opik have four recommendations:
- Return to community politics
- No negative campaigning
- A liberal narrative based on a social libertarian agenda and distributionist economic platform
- A change of leadership by 2014
Joyce and Opik appear to suggest that negative campaigning is a recent thing. The reality is that all three parties are guilty of it and the Liberal party was accused of it many years ago.
Joyce and Opik believe that liberalism came about to fight against vested interests, in particular the land grabbing of the aristocracy. They believe a terrible injustice took place when common land was enclosed. Their answer is the implementation of a land value tax. They believe that the revenue should be distributed via a citizen's credit. Thus, an economic injustice would be put right through redistribution. They hint that perhaps income tax could be one day scrapped.
What Joyce and Opik don't do is explain what else might change. If the tax system went through such an overhaul how would public services be paid for? Would they have to be paid for by individuals? If things are to stay pretty much as they are, would a land value tax be enough? If not, does one need a land value tax? Finally, does a land value tax put right an injustice that is no longer relevant?
The authors of the Alternative View also think that Nick Clegg should stand down to prevent political annihilation at the polls in 2015. From listening to Clegg it is far from clear that he is ready to stand down.
What Joyce and Opik don't discuss is Clegg's recent speeches such as the one on the open society. Nor do they examine the way the Conservative and Labour party's have changed in the last few years. They paint the Conservative party as a defender of privilege. But all three parties are complex coalitions and deserve a proper analysis.
Joyce and Opik believe that Clegg, and those around him, are socially authoritarian. Joyce and Opik dislike banning things and feel that many Lib Dems fall into this trap too often. They also make the case that Clegg's 'muscular liberalism' is an acceptance of David Cameron's agenda.
The book is an important contribution to liberalism. It provides a serious analysis of Lib Dem party policy. It is clear that their alternative view is grounded in a liberal tradition. But it is one element of a political tradition that has been influenced by many ideas: distrust of power, the belief in individual liberty, property rights, the rule of law and so on.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
The missing ingredient in Homeland
After three episodes of Homeland the domestic terror thriller still hasn't taken off.
Something is missing from the show.
It has plenty of great ingredients: a maverick government agent, divided loyalties and sudden twists. If that all sounds familiar it should be. Homeland resembles a slow-motion version of 24. As a new plot line is revealed you are almost willing the TV set to start playing the theme to a show that rejoiced in its absurdity but kept you gripped to the very last hour.
Sadly, Homeland is missing Jack Bauer.
Something is missing from the show.
It has plenty of great ingredients: a maverick government agent, divided loyalties and sudden twists. If that all sounds familiar it should be. Homeland resembles a slow-motion version of 24. As a new plot line is revealed you are almost willing the TV set to start playing the theme to a show that rejoiced in its absurdity but kept you gripped to the very last hour.
Sadly, Homeland is missing Jack Bauer.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Political things that have caught my eye...
In the last few days...
Stephen Tall of Lib Dem Voice has given advice to the Conservative party...
Tim Montgomerie has returned the favour and provide words of wisdom to the Lib Dems...
Lembit Opik has co-written a book with Eric Joyce which also provides advice to the junior partner in the coalition...
Paul Goodman has argued that it is time for the Tory party to end their war on multiculturalism...
...And finally, the EU issued and then withdrew a video that some have described as racist...
Stephen Tall of Lib Dem Voice has given advice to the Conservative party...
Tim Montgomerie has returned the favour and provide words of wisdom to the Lib Dems...
Lembit Opik has co-written a book with Eric Joyce which also provides advice to the junior partner in the coalition...
Paul Goodman has argued that it is time for the Tory party to end their war on multiculturalism...
...And finally, the EU issued and then withdrew a video that some have described as racist...
Monday, 5 March 2012
The Guardian redefines journalism
Perhaps that is a little grand but you can read Alan Rusbridger's concept of open journalism here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)